fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
2019-Gold compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityCardinality)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2020

Introduction

This page presents how 2019-Gold do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents 2019-Gold' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

2019-Gold versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for 2019-Gold and 1229 for GreatSPN, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2019-Gold to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2019-Gold GreatSPN Both tools   2019-Gold GreatSPN
All computed OK 506 2 395   Smallest Memory Footprint
2019-Gold = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 1198 4
2019-Gold > GreatSPN 291   Shortest Execution Time
2019-Gold < GreatSPN 7 Times tool wins 1091 111
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 506 23


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2019-Gold computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where 2019-Gold computed less values than GreatSPN, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2019-Gold wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2019-Gold versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for 2019-Gold and 1229 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2019-Gold to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2019-Gold ITS-Tools Both tools   2019-Gold ITS-Tools
All computed OK 25 22 1009   Smallest Memory Footprint
2019-Gold = ITS-Tools 28 Times tool wins 1172 50
2019-Gold > ITS-Tools 30   Shortest Execution Time
2019-Gold < ITS-Tools 108 Times tool wins 716 506
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 15 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 10 7


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2019-Gold computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where 2019-Gold computed less values than ITS-Tools, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2019-Gold wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2019-Gold versus ITS-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for 2019-Gold and 1229 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2019-Gold to ITS-LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2019-Gold ITS-LoLa Both tools   2019-Gold ITS-LoLa
All computed OK 26 22 1001   Smallest Memory Footprint
2019-Gold = ITS-LoLa 27 Times tool wins 1172 50
2019-Gold > ITS-LoLa 34   Shortest Execution Time
2019-Gold < ITS-LoLa 112 Times tool wins 1195 27
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 16 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 10 7


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2019-Gold computed more values than ITS-LoLa, denote cases where 2019-Gold computed less values than ITS-LoLa, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2019-Gold wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-LoLa wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2019-Gold versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for 2019-Gold and 1229 for Tapaal, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2019-Gold to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2019-Gold Tapaal Both tools   2019-Gold Tapaal
All computed OK 0 2 1012   Smallest Memory Footprint
2019-Gold = Tapaal 112 Times tool wins 1172 30
2019-Gold > Tapaal 31   Shortest Execution Time
2019-Gold < Tapaal 45 Times tool wins 461 741
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 0 27


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2019-Gold computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where 2019-Gold computed less values than Tapaal, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2019-Gold wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2019-Gold versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for 2019-Gold and 1229 for smart, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2019-Gold to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2019-Gold smart Both tools   2019-Gold smart
All computed OK 791 1 377   Smallest Memory Footprint
2019-Gold = smart 0 Times tool wins 1191 1
2019-Gold > smart 18   Shortest Execution Time
2019-Gold < smart 5 Times tool wins 1119 73
Do not compete 0 213 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 604 2


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2019-Gold computed more values than smart, denote cases where 2019-Gold computed less values than smart, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2019-Gold wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart